How do you know the Quran is not the word of God?

[Augustus]

That's a huge strawman. This suggestion is in fact the opposite of that.

That's what people who mistake their own ideology for being value neutral would say.

You are mandating a specific type of worldview be taught to children from birth (by banning the teaching of most alternative worldviews).

The suggestion is to let the teenager decide for themselves. As it stands we have self-appointed preachers making these determinations.

No, you have their parents making the choices. Central governments making these decisions to such a degree has mainly been the preserve of totalitarian regimes.

Top-down social engineering really doesn't have a great track record, and is guaranteed to result in unintended consequences.

Naive rationalism of the kind of Dawkins tends to focus on first order effects and assume things will go exactly as planned.

Our old debate My stance on criticizing and discussing religion is that there ARE generalizations we can make. It simply is NOT the case that religion is so ineffable that no conclusions about it can be drawn.

So what is your rigorous method of differentiating between a religion and 'not a religion'?

As for what's rational, I think it's rational to agree that billions of kids undergo religious indoctrination, and this is hurting us as a group. It's in conflict with critical thinking, and "god knows" critical thinking is desperately needed these days.

If we are thinking critically we would ask where your non-anecdotal evidence is that 'this is hurting us as a group'?

If we were thinking critically, we might not assume that 'not religion' must automatically be better than 'religion', but that never happens among a certain group of people like Dawkins who are ideologically committed to the idea that humans are far more intrinsically rational and humanistic than they actually are.

In this case a dose of Greek mythology might teach him about the dangers of hubris, but we couldn't tell kids that in future because it's religion and thus intrinsically harmful.

Of course not. But they should have context when they study these things.

Still trying to work out the legally enforceable line between religion and not religion that can be deduced in order to enforce this law.

This would be hard to implement - no argument there!

There is a difference between hard, but feasible and not in the slightest bit possible. I fail to see how this could be anything but the latter.

As for desirability...

- the current system often propagates tribalism
- the current system often teaches opposition to universal human rights
- the current system often encourages population explosion
- the current system is often in defiance of critical thinking

Tribalism is a product of human cognition, not religion.

Human rights are no less imaginary than the idea Jesus will return and save us all.

This is not going to limit global population expansion to any significant degree as it is a niche Western Humanist ideological pipe dream that won't catch on outside of the kind of places where niche Western humanists currently have pipe dreams. Surely it is now understood that the idea of Western Humanism being universal and its spread inevitable was not actually true, but a previous ideological pipe dream.

Dawkins' idea is in defiance of critical thinking, as are half of the things around us as we did not evolve to be rational automatons. People like Dawkins never cease to fail to understand human nature and so have to blame a bogeyman like 'religion' for the fact that people not everyone in the world thinks correctly (i.e. pretty much like him).

- the current system is often misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic and so on

Banning Jews from teaching their children Judaism might be considered as one of the most anti-Semitic things imaginable, but that's just me....

 

[1213]

There is a verse that says do not take Jews or Christians as your friends. There are also calls to violence and glorification of cutting off hands and feet, crucifixion, and pouring boiling water on people.

Please show where those are said? It could be useful for me later.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Because Christianity sets specific parameters for what constitutes the Word of God, and what is false prophecy.

Galatians 1:8 in particular automatically disqualifies the Quran, as the person involved is someone who claims to have had an encounter yet preaches a gospel contrary to the one given.
Matthew 7:5 specifically speaks about taqiyya, people who seem friendly but actually want to hurt you.
1 John 4:1-6 says you can't trust prophets blindly, but have to test what they say. In fact, it gives a method to do so. Those who believe that Jesus is not the Savior and did not die for your sins are at odds with the gospel.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 says there are people who pretend to be like Christians since even Satan disguises himself, but their judgement will come from how they act.

 

[icehorse]

You are mandating a specific type of worldview be taught to children from birth (by banning the teaching of most alternative worldviews).

As it stands, if a parent teaches a child a particular religion, that child is getting a minority viewpoint. I'm advocating that children be told the whole truth.

And BTW, you should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not advocating for some sort of big-brother-totalitarian sort of system. Unless you think that current modern educational systems fall into the big brother category, what with teaching all that specific "math is useful" worldview that they teach.

No, you have their parents making the choices. Central governments making these decisions to such a degree has mainly been the preserve of totalitarian regimes.

Top-down social engineering really doesn't have a great track record, and is guaranteed to result in unintended consequences.

Naive rationalism of the kind of Dawkins tends to focus on first order effects and assume things will go exactly as planned.

Lots of strawmen above (some already answered). As for the comment on parents, most of us acknowledge that teaching is a valuable and specialized skill, and we mostly have our children taught by trained teachers.

So what is your rigorous method of differentiating between a religion and 'not a religion'?

Again with the "religion is ineffable" angle

If we are thinking critically we would ask where your non-anecdotal evidence is that 'this is hurting us as a group'?

If we were thinking critically, we might not assume that 'not religion' must automatically be better than 'religion', but that never happens among a certain group of people like Dawkins who are ideologically committed to the idea that humans are far more intrinsically rational and humanistic than they actually are.

In this case a dose of Greek mythology might teach him about the dangers of hubris, but we couldn't tell kids that in future because it's religion and thus intrinsically harmful.

Again with the strawmen - did you read my first post? I suggested that kids be taught comparative religion and then they could decide for themselves which religion to follow (if any).

What happens much of the time is that the child is INDOCTRINATED into the religion of their parents. Luckily apostasy sometimes happens, but as it stands, the indoctrination is frequently successful and the young person has had a major life decision jammed down their throat before they can resist.

I'm not saying it's no-religion, I'm saying it's a choice of religion with the option of no religion.

Tribalism is a product of human cognition, not religion.

Human rights are no less imaginary than the idea Jesus will return and save us all.

This is not going to limit global population expansion to any significant degree as it is a niche Western Humanist ideological pipe dream that won't catch on outside of the kind of places where niche Western humanists currently have pipe dreams. Surely it is now understood that the idea of Western Humanism being universal and its spread inevitable was not actually true, but a previous ideological pipe dream.

- tribalism is codified and supported by religion.

- agreed that human rights are imaginary. But in the west we believe that they lead to a better life for all. Are you now implying that we have no expertise in what belief systems are better than others?

- as for population, religions tend to limit education for women, and we know that when women get better education, they tend to choose to have fewer children.

 

[Augustus]

As it stands, if a parent teaches a child a particular religion, that child is getting a minority viewpoint. I'm advocating that children be told the whole truth.

And the whole truth among the thousands of competing grand narratives of human existence is....?

And BTW, you should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not advocating for some sort of big-brother-totalitarian sort of system. Unless you think that current modern educational systems fall into the big brother category, what with teaching all that specific "math is useful" worldview that they teach.

Which seems to suggest you haven't thought through the implications of your proposal as evidenced by your assumption that creating a school curricula is analogous to mandating what parents may say to their children in the privacy of their own home under threat of prosecution for thoughtcrimes (not a "strawman" btw. Until you present any actual evidence there are tangible harms they can only be considered thoughtcrimes).

Hopefully for once you won't resort to your favourite tactic of simply dismissing everything as a 'strawman' without so much as an attempt to explain why.

This tends to prevent you from considering whether the fact you consider it a 'strawman' is actual due to your failure to think things through properly or consider certain implications of your beliefs. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but we'll never know if you play the 'strawman' card at every opportunity

Lots of strawmen above (some already answered). As for the comment on parents, most of us acknowledge that teaching is a valuable and specialized skill, and we mostly have our children taught by trained teachers.

See above

Also, I personally wouldn't leave my kids' moral and ideological education to teachers. I doubt you would either.

Again with the "religion is ineffable" angle

So should be easy to answer the question.

It was a simple question which is fundamental to your entire point, how do you differentiate between religion and not religion?

Again with the strawmen - did you read my first post? I suggested that kids be taught comparative religion and then they could decide for themselves which religion to follow (if any).

I would give a proper reply but lose the will as you always ignore the key points and just repeat the word strawman a lot.

I'll explain why it's not a strawman and didn't ignore your point if you answer this without using the word strawman:

Have you got any non-anecdotal evidence that religion is so harmful we need to legally prevent parents from teaching it to their children and, if necessary, put children into foster homes to prevent them from being raised as a Buddhist, Hindu or Christian?

- tribalism is codified and supported by religion.

And about 100,000 other things. Why is religion a 'unique evil' rather than nationalism, white supremacism, social Darwinism, Marxist Communism, etc, etc?

Or do we ban these too?

- as for population, religions tend to limit education for women, and we know that when women get better education, they tend to choose to have fewer children.

World population growth is not going to be halted by implementing a ban on teaching your kids religion in a small number of western countries.

To suggest it is would be absurd.

- agreed that human rights are imaginary. But in the west we believe that they lead to a better life for all. Are you now implying that we have no expertise in what belief systems are better than others?

How these developed is an interesting question, but less important until the more fundamental issues have been addressed.

 

[icehorse]

And the whole truth among the thousands of competing grand narratives of human existence is....

Not sure why you're being suck a d##k today, but I'll carry on:

In this case, the truth is that there are thousands of religions and whatever one a parent is teaching his child is just that, one of thousands.

Which seems to suggest you haven't thought through the implications of your proposal as evidenced by your assumption that creating a school curricula is analogous to mandating what parents may say to their children in the privacy of their own home under threat of prosecution for thoughtcrimes (not a "strawman" btw. Until you present any actual evidence there are tangible harms they can only be considered thoughtcrimes).

There are any number of alternatives besides the false dilemma you're suggesting. For example how about some gentle, compassionate marginalization of the parents? How would you react if a kid in your neighborhood was going around spouting calls for genocide of the Jews?

Your suggestion that I'm suggesting the creation of thoughtcrimes is really disheartening. We've had many civil debates on this forum, it seems like your civility is gone on this thread.

So should be easy to answer the question.

(In regards to "what's religion"). What Dawkins is suggesting and I'm defending is an orientation. An orientation doesn't have to have a completely envisioned implementation to be discussed, correct? We can discuss fighting global warming even if we don't have all the answers, correct? So why is this topic different? We are you insisting that all the details must be worked out before a discussion can be had?

And about 100,000 other things. Why is religion a 'unique evil' rather than nationalism, white supremacism, social Darwinism, Marxist Communism, etc, etc?

We perhaps ought to marginalize all of them.

World population growth is not going to be halted by implementing a ban on teaching your kids religion in a small number of western countries.

To suggest it is would be absurd.

That's why I didn't suggest it. I suggested educating ALL women.

How these developed is an interesting question, but less important until the more fundamental issues have been addressed.

Now you're dodging the question. Is it your stance that we have developed no expertise in evaluating the efficacy of different belief systems?

What I'm inferring in your response is that you're defending the idea that all cultures and belief systems are equally good, and who are we to judge? Well we judge all the time. We judge cannibalism to be wrong. We judge polygamy to be wrong. Why can't we judge that teaching children to hate people in other "tribes" is wrong? Why is that a sacred cow (ar ar) for you?

 

[blü 2]

I've heard so many Christians say that they are certain the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So certain are they, that they devote their life to it and are willing to die for it.

However, Muslims are certain that the Quran is the word of God, and they're willing to die for their beliefs as well. How do I know you have anymore credibility than a Muslim who thinks the Quran is the word of God?

But that would mean that Marvel Comics have got it wrong. How is that even possible?

Can't they both be wrong?

Yes, but not Marvel Comics.

 

[Augustus]

(In regards to "what's religion"). What Dawkins is suggesting and I'm defending is an orientation. An orientation doesn't have to have a completely envisioned implementation to be discussed, correct? We can discuss fighting global warming even if we don't have all the answers, correct? So why is this topic different? We are you insisting that all the details must be worked out before a discussion can be had?

It is hardly 'all the details', it is a very basic point about a policy you are advocating. You couldn't advocate a fight against global warming of you couldn't explain what global warming is. This is the correct analogy.

If you want to claim religions are harmful, you should be able to explain what a religion actually is. This is identifying the problem to be solved, not identifying the answers or solutions.

How do you differentiate between an ideology and a religion? Do we ban all religions like Wicca, Pantheism, Neoplatonsim, Transhumanism or just the big ones?

It all comes down to the policy being completely unworkable in the real world.

Sunday morning:
"Where are you going with Mummy, Daddy?"
Church son.
"What happens there?"
Can't tell you.
"Can I come?"
No, the government doesn't allow it.
*looks up internet*
"Do you believe Jesus died for our sins Daddy?"
Can't answer that
"Can I be a Christian too like you and Mummy?"
No, because if you say something at school then your teacher might think we've been secretly teaching you at home and then we'd go to prison.
"I'm scared to be taken away from you and Mummy. I hate the government Daddy"

Not sure why you're being suck a d##k today, but I'll carry on:

Mostly because you are misinterpreting my points to make them far more negative towards you than they actually are. I understand you are not meaning to advocate for an oppressive government, but an emancipatory one. I just think your good intentions are very misguided in this case.

The rest because of the reversion to claiming fallacies rather than discussing things which is my pet hate on RF

Your suggestion that I'm suggesting the creation of thoughtcrimes is really disheartening. We've had many civil debates on this forum, it seems like your civility is gone on this thread.

Talking about misinterpreting, I know you don't think of them as thoughtcrimes which is why I clearly said:

(not a "strawman" btw. Until you present any actual evidence there are tangible harms they can only be considered thoughtcrimes)

i.e. if you can prevent some non-anecdotal evidence that these are producing tangible social harms, then you will have a case that they are not simply thoughtcrimes.

So, your evidence is...

There are any number of alternatives besides the false dilemma you're suggesting. For example how about some gentle, compassionate marginalization of the parents?

You can marginalise people without a legal ban though, a legal ban is for prosecution with all the consequence that entails including stripping kids from their families.

How would you react if a kid in your neighborhood was going around spouting calls for genocide of the Jews?

How would you defend the position that a policy that banned Jews from teaching their children about Judaism was clearly anti-Semitic?

If someone claimed that this was attempted cultural genocide (which someone would), how would you respond?

Also, once the state mandates religions as so harmful that they cannot be taught to children on pain of prosecution, how do you think this will affect attitudes to people from known 'religious' households (and some are more visible than others).

(Although I shouldn't need to say this, just in case... note these are questions that you would obviously face, I'm not saying you are anti-semitic)

We perhaps ought to marginalize all of them.

By marginalise, do you mean ban in a manner similar to the teaching of religion to children?

That's why I didn't suggest it. I suggested educating ALL women.

Yes, but a policy based on Western Secular Humanist ideology is not something that has any degree of support outside a small number of countries

Now you're dodging the question. Is it your stance that we have developed no expertise in evaluating the efficacy of different belief systems?

What I'm inferring in your response is that you're defending the idea that all cultures and belief systems are equally good, and who are we to judge? Well we judge all the time. We judge cannibalism to be wrong. We judge polygamy to be wrong. Why can't we judge that teaching children to hate people in other "tribes" is wrong? Why is that a sacred cow (ar ar) for you?

My stance is that we have developed little expertise in understanding the complex set of human relations that comprise society, and thus are not good at centralised, top-down social engineering.

Many times throughout history we have decided to purposefully eradicate 'harmful' beliefs systems, generally with a terrible record.

I also don't subscribe to the progressive Humanist teleology that assumes Progress is inevitable. Thus I am very wary of unintended consequences that result from human hubris.

This is a general principle of my worldview which goes far beyond this narrow issue.

 

[stvdv]

Of course, you know that the Bible is without error and it is the word of God. You just know. Muslims just know that the Quran is the inerrant word of God. Who's right and who's wrong? Can't they both be wrong?

They are obviously both wrong (IMHO). Why, because nowadays many claim to be "THE word of God". They better start with "A word of God".
Then just give me one scripture and there will be a typo in it or another kind of insconsistency. God is said to be without error. How come these errors.

That's why I rather would say "All scriptures are inspired. The one claiming to be THE only/best one is THE least inspired, so the most wrong"

 

[icehorse]

I don't believe the Qu'ran says it is inerrant. I don't think the Bible says so either. So each party should settle for the Word of God as stated in the texts rather than the thoughts of men.

The Quran claims its perfection (and clarity!), many times.

 

[icehorse]

It is hardly 'all the details', it is a very basic point about a policy you are advocating. You couldn't advocate a fight against global warming of you couldn't explain what global warming is. This is the correct analogy.

If you want to claim religions are harmful, you should be able to explain what a religion actually is. This is identifying the problem to be solved, not identifying the answers or solutions.

How do you differentiate between an ideology and a religion? Do we ban all religions like Wicca, Pantheism, Neoplatonsim, Transhumanism or just the big ones?

I'm happy to grant you that some things are difficult to define. Religion and global warming both fall into that category. If we were debating global warming apologists it's likely that they would mount a similar "if you cannot precisely define it" defense. So no matter how carefully I crafted a definition of religion, apologists could claim that the definition is imperfect. Same with global warming. But WE in society talk about religion all the time. We refer to it in our laws. We protect it in our laws. We restrict it in our laws. So how about if my answer to your question is something like "religion is that which the constitution declares everyone can be free to pursue their own version of". (And of course even that's not entirely true as the Mormons would tell you.)

Next, I've said NOTHING about banning religion. I don't care if you're unhappy that I cry "strawman" - if you don't want me to say that, stop doing it. Please cite the post where Dawkins or I called for banning religion.

You can marginalise people without a legal ban though, a legal ban is for prosecution with all the consequence that entails including stripping kids from their families.

You are the one who continues to bring up legality. I never said that, and I'm not being disingenuous, I never meant to imply it. So - in the interest of putting this facet of the conversation to bed - I agree that any laws banning the teaching of religion to children would be an abhorrent solution. I understand your concerns about social engineering. That said, we do do social engineering all the time, it's just that we're very careful with it (or we should be). E.g. 40 years ago or so, we mounted a huge campaign to let people know that smoking cigarettes was dangerous.

Yes, but a policy based on Western Secular Humanist ideology is not something that has any degree of support outside a small number of countries

I'm missing your point here. All I can think is that you're saying we shouldn't pursue the right thing "because it's hard", but I'll ask you to clarify...

My stance is that we have developed little expertise in understanding the complex set of human relations that comprise society, and thus are not good at centralised, top-down social engineering.

Many times throughout history we have decided to purposefully eradicate 'harmful' beliefs systems, generally with a terrible record.

I also don't subscribe to the progressive Humanist teleology that assumes Progress is inevitable. Thus I am very wary of unintended consequences that result from human hubris.

This is a general principle of my worldview which goes far beyond this narrow issue.

I hope you know by now that I stand with you in opposition to totalitarian systems.

That said, how is letting children decide for themselves a policy of "eradication"? My sense is that the religious fear such an idea because they know how hard it is to get even somewhat mature minds to buy their load of crap. In other words, those folks who evangelize religion understand that their best chance to get new members is to attack the immature minds of children. How is this not an example of the sort of social engineering you're so rightly concerned with?

 

[JesusMyFriend]

Quran says:
…The Messiah, Jesus, … was but a messenger of Allah ….believe in Allah and His messengers. …
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
http://quran.com/4/171

So, if I believe what Jesus said, I do as Quran tells and Bible is correct.

Do you know anything of the Quran that is in contradiction with the Bible?

Whether Jesus actually died or not.. I think Muslims believe he did not exactly die (correct me if I'm wrong..)

 

[England my lionheart]

I've heard so many Christians say that they are certain the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So certain are they, that they devote their life to it and are willing to die for it.

However, Muslims are certain that the Quran is the word of God, and they're willing to die for their beliefs as well. How do I know you have anymore credibility than a Muslim who thinks the Quran is the word of God?

Of course, you know that the Bible is without error and it is the word of God. You just know. Muslims just know that the Quran is the inerrant word of God. Who's right and who's wrong?

Can't they both be wrong?

Depends what they were born into for many and who told them either was true.

 

[icehorse]

@Augustus - I went back and looked at my post #31 and I can see how it was ambiguous. My bad. That said, once I clarified that I wasn't advocating for some draconian, invasion solition, I'm not sure why you'd keep bringing that up. I hope we're clear now.

Do not allow parents to teach religion to their kids, and then when the kids are old enough, teach them comparative religion and let them decide for themselves.

 

[Klepperman]

The Qur’an is not the Word of God because it contradicts itself constantly.
It refers to the Septuagint and the Gospel as truth, and then later says it's corrupted.
Too many excuses! Like saying the Quran works best in Arabic, and using certain verses to promote it when times are good and others when times are rough.
The truth of the Quran is that it is a book of war, and it is terrorism.
They will say oh the Crusades? But the Jihad is going on for 1500 years steady.
They worship not God because they Worship ALLAH, they say that they revere the God of Abraham, while referring to the Septuagint as truth.The God of Abraham is not the Monotheïstic God! For the Septuagint states that The LORD is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. AND IT IS CLEAR ON THAT FOR A REASON.
They literally do pagan rituals.
They say stuff about Christ.
They say Paul corrupted the Bible.
They say stuff about Muhammed.
They say a lot of things about everything except God that he's merciful.
You can’t picture muhammad btw, they kill you, how merciful..
You can’t leave Islam btw, they kill you, how merciful.
Muhammad was a white racist slave trader that had red hair.
This is the Prophet Muhammad's grand-grand-grand-son:


… well the Apostle Paul has something to say about the big Q.
“Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us. 3 Don’t be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessnessb]">[b] is revealed—the one who brings destruction.c]">[c] 4 He will exalt himself and defy everything that people call god and every object of worship. He will even sit in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God.”

 

[Segev Moran]

How do you know the Quran is not the word of God?
?

How do you know it is?

 

[1213]

Whether Jesus actually died or not.. I think Muslims believe he did not exactly die (correct me if I'm wrong..)

It would be nice to see, what does the Quran say about that, I don’t know if it says so.

 

[Spiderman]

How do you know it is?

I don't know

 

[England my lionheart]

Hello my brother
I hope you are fine
One of the conditions I have to do is to be a Muslim
Faith in the Torah and the Gospel, and Jesus as a holy prophet of God and the birth of Virgin Mary

And that Islam came to correct the misconceptions attributed to Christianity as the Trinity and other misconceptions

Many in the time of the Prophet Muhammad Islam and many objected because he believed that Muhammad is a liar


It found an ancient version of Barnabas before the Prophet Muhammad talking about the Prophet Muhammad
Secret £14million Bible in which 'Jesus predicts coming of Prophet Muhammad' unearthed in Turkey | Daily Mail Online

Solomon 's wife was singing a song of Mohammedem

The evidence is that Jesus was not a God because he was a living being built within a creature
The Creator is built into a creature's body
This is not reasonable

May Allah have mercy on us all
GOD bless you (^_^)

shalom and salam

If its in the daily mail it's got to be right, in the article it also says it a fake.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus - I went back and looked at my post #31 and I can see how it was ambiguous. My bad. That said, once I clarified that I wasn't advocating for some draconian, invasion solition, I'm not sure why you'd keep bringing that up. I hope we're clear now.

"Do not allow parents to teach religion to their kids, and then when the kids are old enough, teach them comparative religion and let them decide for themselves."

Based on 'not allow', I assumed that there must be legal aspect because it's not likely to have much effect if you just give it as a recommendation. If all it is is a recommendation then, no problem, recommend till the cows come home. Governments recommend all sorts, although it would likely have as much effect on parents as Dawkins saying it in a lecture.

I'm missing your point here. All I can think is that you're saying we shouldn't pursue the right thing "because it's hard", but I'll ask you to clarify...

I'm saying pursuing ideological pipe dreams is a waste of time.

This goes back to the idea that many Secular Humanists think their values are really a neutral expression of reason, rather than an ideological product of a specific cultural and historical evolution. Basically, they are an offshoot of Christianity fused with aspects of Greek/Enlightenment rationalism. Very few who subscribe to such values will accept this though, which means they fail to understand why the growth of wealth and education around the world hasn't ushered in the End of History type scenario that was always the assumption among such people.

When you go to a country which is neither Christian, nor significantly influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and try to introduce The Most Uniquely Secular Humanist Policy in the World Ever, it doesn't work and will not work in any timescale that makes even basic speculation of value.